So steephie what are you upset about?
The letter basicly says you can ignore it its just a purely hypothetical situation.

The fact that you can be drafted is because the line is set at 17 apparently when you, by law, are physically fit enough to fight.

The line for voting is set at 18 because the law thinks you are mentally mature enough to vote.

The line for drinking is set at 18 because they want you to be both mentally mature enough and old enough it does less damage to your brain/body. (I think i kinda skipped the whole drinking age debate).

Or at least thats how i see those 3 things.

@steephie "Do the people in civil service have to join the army when war breaks out? I don't know the details there."
We'd do unarmed service, so no fighting, but producing equipment, help keeping everything running back home.


@Krediax"The fact that you can be drafted is because the line is set at 17 apparently when you, by law, are physically fit enough to fight.

The line for voting is set at 18 because the law thinks you are mentally mature enough to vote."

Mature enough to be trained to shoot people, not mature enough to vote. That's some good reasoning.

This is one of those odd things in the Netherlands. The Dutch government actually took some effort to address this as an exception to the UN Convention on Rights of the Child to ensure that kids 17 years old can still serve. Why oh why do we make this weird exception?

On the other hand, the Dutch seem to have absolutely no problem to lecture anybody else on their neglect of international law.

Why not? noticed the fact i said physically and mentally?

So yes, physically mature enough to be trained to shoot people and no mentally not mature enough to vote. Why does the fact you are physically mature enough mean you are mature enough to vote? Those are completely unrelated imo.

"Mature enough to be trained to shoot people, not mature enough to vote. That's some good reasoning."

This has been a norm for the entirety of human history. I don't really see a problem with treating the voting right (+the right to be elected) as the pinnacle of the age-related rights . It affects the entire country and its proper execution requires more developed character than killing someone - humans do grasp the full implications of killing someone earlier than the full implications of their voting activity. I find it odd that some states in the US give the right to drink even later but it's their society so nothing wrong with that.

I would agree with the difference *except* where it ces to forced service. If you have no say in the laws of your country and the people running it, you should have no obligation to it or the people running it. But that's an extension of "taxation without representation" to me and my American sensibilities find it absolutely offensive.

I would also abolish the Pledge of Allegiance for children. But in principle, I have no problem with taxation without representation, a globalized world cannot work otherwise. Just because I paid various taxes in 7 different countries in the last 3 months doesn't make me want to influence where that money goes or demand a refund on the tax. Of course this wilingness is lowered by being a resident and the amount of tax paid. Similarly, children are practically forced to do many things before being able to vote (I don't know how it works in the US but we gain limited legal responsibility before the voting right as well, so you are lawfully forced to cooperate with the state apparatus in certain matters before getting the voting right) so drawing the line at miitary service is more or less a deliberate deed based on other moral concerns than just the extension of taxation without representation. And these moral concerns might even be more important in most of the Western world.

I guess I'd just like soldiers to be mentally mature enough to do more than follow orders.

I guess I'd like a person to have some say in the government that orders them to go kill or be killed.

What Draugnar says is exactly my point.
These days, many countrymen are only united in their nationality. They don't share opinions or anything. Politically, I usually don't even agree with my parents.

No one represents me, why should I represent my country?

I could go even further: why would I be forced at the age of 18 to accept rights as well as responsibilities, if I consider myself not responsible enough?

Why can't people be at least 18 before they get the *choice* to take up responsibilities and rights?

@Steephie: An 18 year old who thinks they're not responsible enough to drink is probably more responsible then 95% of 18 year olds who do think they are.

It also presents a challenge of enforcing the drinking age when there is two people of the same age, and only one of them can legally drink. After all, the drivers license we all carry around to show we are of age would no longer be sufficient enough to determine who is and isn't allowed to drink. So how would bars know who they can and cannot serve?

The simplicity of slapping down an arbitrary age of responsibility makes the age system superior to any other system to determining responsibility.

Its simpler, easier and cheaper to enforce, and in that sense its superior.

Now I'm not saying that 18, 19 or 21 or whatever is the perfect age, I don't know what age would be best.

It isn`t like you can never vote, just suck it up for a year.
Never hear people complaining that they get rights from the goverment before they can vote. You only bring that up now because there is a negative side to it.

Well Steephie since you are so mature and know it all and don't agree with *a single person* in your country and *nobody* represents you...

then turn off the light, cut off the hear, stop utilizing the countries financial system to acquire food that is brought to your local store (which adhere's to governmetn rules and regs)...

In short, start off buck naked and go live of the fucking land, like someone who doesn't agree with anything about their country.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up and stop being such a pussy. Give me a fucking break with your whiny "nobody understands me" bullshit...

Forget it is steephie specifically, but lets discuss the idea that someone could be drafted and killed without ever having been allowed to vote for thebpeoplenwhongot them killed. Even in the US this could (and did) happen. Vietnam snagged a number of 18 year olds before they ever got to cast a ballot. Is that fair? Is it moral to send someone off to be killed just because they turned some magic age without first letting them have a say in the government that is going to send them to their death?

Draugnar, why do you think this is wrong but getting all the benefits from the goverment before the age of 18 isn`t.
And if they were 18 they could vote right?

It's not about it being benefits or drawbacks.

It's about being allowed being considered mature enough to shoot and kill a person in the name of your country, while not being considered mature enough to choose who represents your views. The tension is there.

"And if they were 18 they could vote right?"
If there's an election. But they were sent to war before their first election was held.

And its odd that there is tension because those are 2 different things.
One is physically and the other is mental. One does not imply the other.

@Gtblx
So a person can only be sent to war if they have already voted?
Hypotheticly, i get 18 on april 2, election are on april 1. Elections are hold every 4 years so i can only be drafted when im (minus a day) 22.

Serving your country - dying in a war - in the Viet Nam era wasn't supposed to be some privileged choice you got to make if you felt like it. It was a (like it or not) "need" as determined by the representatives of the people in teh government, that determined that the greater good was served by sacrificing those lives. Just as they determine it is the greater good to take tax dollars from me and give it to children, who never complain upon receiving my check in the mail.

This is such a Liberal idea -- I should only get to choose the things about a society that I like/that benefit me, but I'll be damned if I'll go along with something that inconveniences me on occassion, or maybe even puts my life on the line for the greater good.

18 smeaighteen - by that age you have fully benefited from the government you will die for, and your vote was cast for you by the people elected to represent you.

Better solution - send more kids to the military (line our borders to protect them from infiltration), and let fewer vote - only when they have passed a test indicating they have the intellectual capacity, and enough knowledge of this nation and it's government to be able to reasonably make a decision about its leadership.

Truth is, it is easier to train to you kill and die for your country, and it provides a greater benefit to all when you do so, then it does to have you being allowed to cast a vote simply because you are old enough to wipe your behind without assistance.

"And its odd that there is tension because those are 2 different things.
One is physically and the other is mental. One does not imply the other."
There are mental requirements for military training. Are you saying fighting in a war requires no mental ability?

"@Gtblx
So a person can only be sent to war if they have already voted?
Hypotheticly, i get 18 on april 2, election are on april 1. Elections are hold every 4 years so i can only be drafted when im (minus a day) 22."
Yes.


"18 smeaighteen - by that age you have fully benefited from the government you will die for, and your vote was cast for you by the people elected to represent you."
If you weren't allowed to vote you are not represented. Solution: set the voting age so that every one will get to vote by the time they're required to do military service.

Gtlblx -- "you are not represented" Then you know *nothing* about how a representative government works. Al;l the more reason you should be DISALLOWED from voting.

You know, sometimes the government addresses topics that were never even mentioned during an election cycle...does that mean those decisions they make should not be valid? You are represented by your parents, or your care-takers, who voted for representatives on your behalf.

If you think you are not represented, then I suggest you empty your savings and give all you can back to the government that provides the infrastructure that has kept your healthy, well-fed ass alive up to the age of 18.

Insolent, un-grateful little pukes....

"There are mental requirements for military training. Are you saying fighting in a war requires no mental ability?"
No... and its stupid if you picked that up.

"Yes."
So we are at war! But we have to leave a large part of the young and capable men behind because they havn`t voted yet.

"If you weren't allowed to vote you are not represented. Solution: set the voting age so that every one will get to vote by the time they're required to do military service."

Solution: set the voting age so that you can cast a vote when you are born because hey, you arn`t represented at that time!

And i`ll say it again, physically being able to wage a war does not mean you are mentally capable of voting. And crying that something bad happend to you and you havn`t voted yet is a perfect example of hypocrisie since you get benefits before you vote from the goverment as well.

Eh Kred - you know, you shouldn't have to go to war for your country until you'd gotten off by the hand of your first governmnet-paid-for two-bit hooker. Only upon such release on the King's dime should you be required to lay it on the line.

Yeah, you're right krellin. It's far easier to have young children unrepresented politically before you send them to die because you deem it to be the greater good. Infanticide would be so much harder if you'd have to factor in their opinion on the matter.